MOHINDER SINGH Vs. STATE OF DELHI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) These are two bail applications, one by Mohinder Singh Oberoi and the other by Manjeet Singh, in the case FIR 238/85 of PS Patel Nagar, under Sections 120-B, 121, 122, 123, 121-A, 121-B, 153, 153-A, 153-B, 186, 332, 353, 302, 307 and 427 IPC read with sections 3, 4, 5 and 6 of the Explosive Substances Act read with sections 25/27 of the Arms Act. In this case as many as 49 persons are facing trial, 46 of them have already been released on bail. Mr. A.S. Chaudhary, learned counsel for the petitioners, submitted that these two accused persons were arrested as far back as on May 12, 1985. The accused were committed to Sessions by the order dated January 29, 1986, but till now the trial Court has not even framed charges against the accused persons and the case is being adjourned from time to time Mr. Chaudhary contended that the accused have already in jail for a period of three years without any trial. He referred to certain cases in support of his submission that in cast ? there is an inordinate delay in concluding the trial of an accused person the accused - should ordinarily be admitted to bail. He referred to the decisions of the Supreme Court in the cases Husainara Khatoon and others v Home Secretary, State of Bihar, TV Vatheeswaran v. State of Tamil Nadu, and the decision of the Full Bence of the Patna High Court in the case Anurag Baitha v. State of Bihar.

(2.) Mr. Chaudhary next submitted that the prosecution mainly relied on the statements of the two accused persons who were made approvers namely, Jagit Singh and Devinder Singh. It is submitted that both these persons, however, did not support the prosecution in their statements recorded under section 164 Cr. P.C. by the Chief Metropolitan Magistrate and that they were turned hostile. It was further submitted that even these two approvers have already been released on bail before their statements could be recorded by the trial Court. They were so released on bail after their statements were recorded by the committal Court. Mr. Chaudhary also made his detailed submissions by which he tried to assail the evidence as relied on by the prosecution against the accused persons in the present case.

(3.) Mr. Lao, learned Standing Counsel for the State, in reply submitted that the delay in the trial of the case is not attributable to the prosecution; as some of the accused persons have not been appearing on the dates fixed by the trial court for the consideration of charge and that has caused the entire delay in the commencement of the trial. In reply, Mr. Chaudhary submitted that no blame can be put on either of the two petitioners for the fact that some of their co-accused did not appear on a number of dates and that the fact remains that the trial of the case has not commenced even though 2i years have elapsed since the case was committed to Sessions.